Snookered by Fox

Shirley Sherrod was condemned by the NAACP and fired by the USDA on the basis of an edited video clip of her speech. This clip, posted by Andrew Breitbart, was selectively edited to show only what appeared to be racist comments. However, the entire clip reveals the truth.

Breitbart seems to have intended the clip as a return shot in response to the NAACP’s accusation that the Tea Party tolerates racism. The point was, of course, to show racism at a NAACP meeting, thus showing that the NAACP was inconsistent. Apparently Breitbart could not find actual evidence of racism, so perhaps he resorted to manufacturing the evidence by posting the edited version of the clip. If so, this is clearly a morally reprehensible act of deceit. If, however, he merely acted in ignorance of the full clip, then he would only be guilty of not engaging in proper research before posting the clip.

Of course, he would not be the only one guilty of a failure to do research. As noted above, the NAACP and the USDA rushed into action on the basis of the edited clip and not the full version. In what seems to be an effort to dodge blame, the NAACP now claims that they were snookered by Fox News. I would have thought that the folks in the NAACP would be aware of the nature of Fox News. As such, they should have been a bit more critical. In any case, they should not have relied on such a limited number of sources. After all, such a serious condemnation should have been backed up with equally serious research and due diligence. To fail to do so is both a professional and a moral failure. Blaming Fox in no way mitigates their responsibility.

The same applies to the USDA. While it is understandable that they would wish to act quickly, it is clear that they acted far too hastily. The source of the edited clip should have been considered and, of course, the entire clip should have been viewed. Such a review would not have taken very long and both professionalism and ethics demand that such a proper review take place before a person is fired.

While the clip probably did not have exactly the effect that Breitbart expected, the situation might be seen as a win for certain people. After all, the NAACP took a hit as did the Obama administration. On a more positive note, the situation did an excellent job of exposing how poorly charges of racism are handled. I would like to hope that this incident will result in some positive change, but I suspect the lesson will not stick.

So…..you think she didn’t say anyhting that was racist? Even within context of the entire video? Do I think she should be fired? No. I just watched the entire 43 minute video. She talked about a past incident where she acted with self admitted racist intent dropped him off with his own kind and after time realized it was about rich and poor. There is one. She mentioned the Republicans opposing the health care bill because of a black president. That is two. She talks about the USDA nearby having 129 some odd jobs and points out that less than 20 are black. That is three. She later mentions a farm that had been owned for generations by a black family but relatives were trying to force a sale. She saves the land or part of it(little bit vague on what she did but not important) but says that a white guy is lined up to buy the best part of the property. That is four. I thought racism is when you were talking about people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character. I won’t count this one but she did say it would be nice to have blacks and whites filling the room there. I thought, well it would but this IS a NAACP event after all. Even though the NAACP was started by white people it certainly wasn’t meant for them. Look, she said some minorly racist things that if they were said at say a resteraunt in like fashion would make her look like a crazy. “Your resteraunt is plesent but of the 34 people here only 4 are black. Oh, and I’ll take a burger and fries”. Being at a NAACP event makes these comments seem natural. After watching the video Shirley seems very likeable and charming. She would be a cool relative, let’s say an aunt, at something like a family get together at Thanks Giving. I’ll end by saying to me there was some minor racist comments. They didn’t offend me and I can move on. I do not think she should lose her job over it and I appreciate her at least being an honest person. It is the liars you have to worry about. Racism will never end until people stop refering to others by the color of their skin in context of a situation. Plain and simple.

It depends on what you mean by “racism.” She did talk about race and, as you point out, she did indicate that she once thought in what could be taken as racist terms. However, I would not consider her a racist now.

“Racism will never end until people stop refering to others by the color of their skin in context of a situation. Plain and simple.”

A modification, perhaps: ” . . .untill people resist stooping to deceptive editng
(a la Breitbart) to make debatable racism appear to be sometihing that it is not”

Your first incident is not racism. . .It’s an admission to her recognition of past racism thinking on her part. Perhaps, unlike some others, she can learn, grow, and change. (Only to have the likes of Breitbart come along, edit her words, and present everything in an entirely different light).

She takes time to develop a case for where she was coming from back then. She describes her childhood in racist Georgia. Breitbart did not offer proof to dispute her recounting of her childhood experiences, and I wonder why.
“A white man wouldn’t be convicted of killing a black man during those days.”
Can you or Andy B offer up denials about her claims about murders of blacks in Baker County? Or about the case of Sheriff Claude Screws who killed a black man. “An all white federal jury , convicted him NOT of murder. . but of depriving him of his civil rights. The rest of the story seems to go like this. The case came before the SC. The SC said he had to be retried, because the civil rights charge wasn’t the correct legal charge. Screw, they said, should’ve been charged with murder. The case went back to Georgia, where a white jury found Screws not guilty of murder.

Is the 129 – 20 statement fact or fiction? If it’s fact, how is it racism?

“I thought racism is when you were talking about people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character.” The character of men like Claude Screws isn’t in doubt is it?

How about a clearer explanation of Breitbart’s fantasy. . . Taking up where the editing leaves of, after she describes her initial reactions to the white farmer’s request. “I took him [a white farmer]to a white lawyer. . . that was when it was revealed to me that ya’all it’s about poor versus those who have. . . but not so much about black and white. It is about black and white but. . . ” She goes on to describe how his white lawyer and the white county supervisor screwed him. Sherrod stood up for the farmer and took him to a black lawyer who helped him.

She says blacks and whites need to get it “out of our heads. There is no difference between us. The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power. .” Does AB include that part?

So, to continue from my last post: “Even though the NAACP was started by white people…” I coulda sworn WEB Dubois was black! Accuracy, k, accuracy.

“Your resteraunt is plesent but of the 34 people here only 4 are black. Oh, and I’ll take a burger and fries”. Humorous. Now you know she didn’t say that, and there’s a huge difference between numbers of patrons at a restaurant and the number of employees in a workplace. What would really be “funny”, right, would be walking into a southern restaurant in the Fifties and making the factual observation that “Your restaurant is pleasant, but of the thirty four people here NOT ONE of them is black.” Now THAT would have been a real laugh fest!

You didn’t really understand the context of the statement you quoted, did you? “She talks about the USDA nearby having 129 some odd jobs and points out that less than 20 are black. ” Listen again. She’s blaming blacks for not seeking jpbs in agriculture, she’s not blaming whites for keeping whites out of jobs. That doesn’t sound like racism to me.

She says “It’s not just about black people it’s about poor people.” “I’ve come a long way” It’s sad that we don’t have room for the blacks and the whites.” “We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, race exists but it doesn’t matter.” Are these selections in AB’s edited trashpile?

More stuff you and Breitbart forgot that seems to refute the racism charge. “You should be excelling. Parents you’ve got to set some goals for your children. You cannot allow them not to become the best they can be. Not studying certainly won’t get you there . . .The change has to start with us.” “We need to stop trying to get things you don’t need.”

Here’s the message, the core message of Breitbart’s twisted version of Sherrod’s speech as I see it. Historically, conservatives have been bitching that blacks want things handed to them. They’re not willing to work for an education. Sherrod supports hard work, setting goals, and “putting race behind us”. Breitbart comes along, chops up her message into tiny, irrelevant, distorting pieces, and hides it under the rubble of his lies.He’s sooooo afraid of any message that would prove conservatives stereotypes wrong.

Oh, my, God, , the irony of the statement “context matters” coming out of Beck’s mouth.. Breitbart doesn’t give a shit about context. He cares about maintainilng the ‘conservative truth about blacks’ as he knows it. He could not possibly have HONESTLY viewed this entire video and reached the conclusions he tried to pass on with his edited hit job.

You write:”They didn’t offend me and I can move on.” Wow. After listening to Sherrod’s stories of racism in childhood that’s really quite big of you k, quite a sacrifice. :) Exactly what are you “moving on” from, compared to, say, what Sherrod and blacks in the South had to move on from?

BTW k: How long, exactly, was AB’s edited vid? Could you post it for us? Just how many minutes of the 43+ minute video did Abby excise?

They might but there are two of you that deny Shirley mentioning Republicans voting against a bill was because the president was black. Yes, she went through some horendous things as a child I understand but racism is racism. We will never get past it if we pick and choose. A man that beats a wife because he was beaten as a child or wittnessed his mother being beaten in the past does not make it any less acceptable.

Did I say that was not a racist statement? If I did—and you can consider it a challenge to find the statement and present it here, I’ll say now that it is. I don’t believe I read anything from Michael that implied that statement wasn’t racist.

Now, just to show where you’re coming from, specifically, and statement by statement, go through my 7/23 7:27 and my 7/23 10:46 posts and admit that those things that some have labeled racist are obviously NOT racist except when taken out of context. I want to hear from someone who listened to the entire speech that her recounting of her childhood and the dealings with the white farmer were prelude to a message about a new understanding about black white relations and NOT racism. “It’s not just about black people it’s about poor people.” “I’ve come a long way” “It’s sad that we don’t have room for the blacks and the whites.” “We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, race exists but it doesn’t matter.”

Well, the back and forth on this forum and throughout the blogosphere proves we haven’t arrived at the point where ” race exists but it doesn’t matter”. The fact that people like Breitbart and his ilk could take a speech like this which is 95% anti-racist and edit out about 93% and proclaim to the heavens that it’s a racist speech is not a good omen for the direction of racism in this country. He’s much much worse than the grinning old fart in the Johnstown crowd who was holding a monkey doll with the Obama label.If, in the name of “moving on” we don’t call ‘them’ out, identify them, excoriate their evil actions, what slimy rock does anyone have the right to crawl out from under to criticize Sherrod’s lone statement about health care in a 43 minute speech? That’s going to help us move on?

Note: Your silence would seem to indicate that, upon further “research” you agree that WEB Dubois was a founder of the NAACP . . .

Just depends on whether you read on (and not just in part) or read in (i.e. read part and interpret the rest the way you’d like to see it), I guess. Note “1909” and particularly, please note “The Founders on the following NAACP page:

I’ll go with the NAACP’s understanding of who the NAACP’s founders are, since it is, after all, their organization.

The fellow in the video says essentially what Sherrod says if you don’t edit out the parts that make understanding what she said possible. You want to see where the hatred is coming from,look to Breitbart and people who would do that kind of thing.

I listened to the whole thing; you say you listened to the whole thing. Breitbart presented a clip less than three minutes in length trying to characterize Sherrod and her speech as racist yet he and others are still maintaining they’re on the right side of this thing. Where does did respect for an intelligent American public get lost here? Publish the entire damn manuscript/let the public decide and let the pundits shut their monkeyf*ng mouths. . .(thank you Michael, for the adjective)

Don’t get me started on Walter Williams. . . A not infrequent Rush Limbaugh substitute who wouldn’t be alllowed within ten feet of the golden microphone if he didn’t agree lock, stock, and barrel with Rush’s views- – -and, not surprisingly, a supporter of Rand Paul (who, if I understand him correctly would be fine with “privatizing racism”. . .letting the private businessman make a decision who he will and will not serve based on color). I have yet to find one of his arguments for that point of view convincing in any context.

And I’m just wondering if anyone here has found any legitimate research of William’s slave ancestry? I think anice straight line leading back to ancestors of his brought over in the early 1800’s would add a lot more credence to his “Amnesty and Pardon. . .”

‘And I’m just wondering if anyone here has found any legitimate research of William’s slave ancestry? I think anice straight line leading back to ancestors of his brought over in the early 1800′s would add a lot more credence to his “Amnesty and Pardon. . .”’ – I guess he isn’t black enough and not ‘down for the struggle’.

Since when does Fox make administration policy? If they were too stupid to look at the facts and do a little research on their own before acting irrationally it is someone elses fault? How much staff do they have sopping up tax payer money?

I was actually echoing a question from my 7/23 10:46 pm — a question I asked you that you never answered:
” You write:”’They didn’t offend me and I can move on.’ Wow. After listening to Sherrod’s stories of racism in childhood that’s really quite big of you k, quite a sacrifice. :) Exactly what are you ‘moving on’ from, compared to, say, what Sherrod and blacks in the South had to move on from?”

Now, follow me here. I’m just guessing , but in theory at least, it must be a LOT easier to grant pardon when no offense was given (how was it ‘you’ were you offended again?) than it would be to blithely forget a past that included memories of killings and beatings of neighbors because their skin was the color of yours and ongoing instances of prejudice against you personally, in everyday childhood life—-all such as described in Sherrod’s speech. That just has to be a bit more difficult to pardon. K : At least blink your eyes if you agree.

I was just questioning Williams ancestry. How intense has his personal experience with bigotry been, irrespective of his skin color? It’s much much easier to intellectualize someone else’s pain (if intellectualizing” is what he was doing in his childish#* “pardon”).

********

“If they were too stupid to look at the facts and do a little research on their own before acting irrationally it is someone elses fault?”
So a mistake by “B” AFTER a LIE by “A” somehow erases A’s (Fox’s and Breitbart’s) responsibilities? There are echoes here of the thinking behind Williams “pardon”. .

I reject that kind of thinking. I’ll give more credence to the following (from David Frum)

#*Yes William, white people have been persecuted by others in the past. But somehow it seems a tad childish for a “noted scholar” to say “But teacher, he did it first!” even if said scholar is just a bystander and not the kid the teacher caught kicking and biting.

Did I say that was not a racist statement? If I did—and you can consider it a challenge to find the statement and present it here, I’ll say now that it is. I don’t believe I read anything from Michael that implied that statement wasn’t racist.

Now, just to show where you’re coming from, specifically, and statement by statement, go through my 7/23 7:27 and my 7/23 10:46 posts and admit that those things that some have labeled racist are obviously NOT racist except when taken out of context. I want to hear from someone who listened to the entire speech that her recounting of her childhood and the dealings with the white farmer were prelude to a message about a new understanding about black white relations and NOT racism. “It’s not just about black people it’s about poor people.” “I’ve come a long way” “It’s sad that we don’t have room for the blacks and the whites.” “We have to get to the point where, as Toni Morrison says, race exists but it doesn’t matter.”

Well, the back and forth on this forum and throughout the blogosphere proves we haven’t arrived at the point where ” race exists but it doesn’t matter”. The fact that people like Breitbart and his ilk could take a speech like this which is 95% anti-racist and edit out about 93% and proclaim to the heavens that it’s a racist speech is not a good omen for the direction of racism in this country. He’s much much worse than the grinning old fart in the Johnstown crowd who was holding a monkey doll with the Obama label.If, in the name of “moving on” we don’t call ‘them’ out, identify them, excoriate their evil actions, what slimy rock does anyone have the right to crawl out from under to criticize Sherrod’s lone statement about health care in a 43 minute speech? That’s going to help us move on?

Note: Your silence would seem to indicate that, upon further “research” you agree that WEB Dubois was a founder of the NAACP . . .

Just because I don’t answer doesn’t mean I agree. I don’t know what you do for a living but I cannot spend all of my time here. If you want to think you’re the center of the universe though then go ahead.

Interesting attempt at deflection. At your July 23, 1:52 pm you say you took time to listen to the entire speech and you responded at length. I took the time to dismantle several of your misinterpretations and set you straight about the founders of the NAACP— we dp agree that WEB Dubois was a founder of the NAACP, right?. Why don’t you just tell us about the areas you don’t agree with. Write “aye” for yes and “nay” for no. If you’re not going to take time that you obviously do have to reply to my legitimate questions, why should I be respectful enough to respond to your posts? Answering my own question: Because I find it entertaining,
( If you don’t have enough time to respond to my questions, at least limit your claims to verifiable facts, and substantive opinions.)

“The Birth of the NAACP
See also: African-American – Jewish relations #Early 20th Century
The Race Riot of 1908 in Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, Illinois had highlighted the urgent need for an effective civil rights organization in the U.S. This event is often cited as the catalyst for the formation of the NAACP. Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling and Henry Moscowitz met in New York City in January 1909 and the NAACP was born.[9] Solicitations for support went out to more than 60 prominent Americans, and a meeting date was set for February 12, 1909. This was intended to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln, who emancipated enslaved African Americans. While the meeting did not take place until three months later, this date is often cited as the founding date of the organization.

The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909 by a diverse group composed of Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, Archibald Grimké, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villard, William English Walling (the last son of a former slave-holding family),[9][10] and Florence Kelley, a social reformer and friend of Du Bois.[11]
” -Wikipedia

If you want to get technical on when the orginization was legally formed then yes, Dubois was a part of it. My point is that it was not originally his idea. It was the idea and started in motion by three white people. To me the NAACP is just like unions, they have both out lived their usefulness. I did say ‘started’ in my original post. I still stand by what I said. Your posts with parsing all of my words amuses me too. By the way, stop deflecting, isn’t this about FOX too? :)

Deflection:. . .”. . .isn’t this about FOX too” Hey. I followed YOU on your off-road adventure at 7/23 1:52 pm In that post what did you mean by this: “Even though the NAACP was started by white people it certainly wasn’t meant for them”.
Def. from freedictionary.com (as reliable a source as wikipedia?)
“start” (stärt)
v.tr.
1. To commence; begin.
2. To set into motion, operation, or activity.
3. To introduce; originate.
5. To FOUND; establish: start a business.
Clearly, Dubois was a founder, helped to “set into motion” the organization. The wikipedia article on the founding fathers list gives some insight. It separates the “key founding fathers” from the rest of the founders (about 140 of them). But you can rest assured that without those other founder or men like them, the 7 key founders would not have succeeded in their goal to establish a nation.

“My point is that it was not originally his idea.”
If that was your point, that’s what you should have written– instead of pasting in a citing from naacp.org that “conveniently” ignored the following page from the same site. See under “Founders” here (again) : http://naacp.com/about/history/timeline/index.htm
“1909
On February 12th The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded by a MULTIRACIAL group of activists, who answered “The Call,” in the New York City, NY. They initially called themselves the National Negro Committee.
FOUNDERS
Ida Wells-Barnett, W.E.B. DUBOIS, Henry Moscowitz, Mary White Ovington, Oswald Garrison Villiard, William English Walling LED the “Call” to renew the struggle for civil and political liberty. “

Refute what? All you say is “…in such and such a post at such and such a time you dissagreed with such and such a post at such and such a time and because you didn’t answer me in such and such a time( this is a mysterious time only know to you ) then I am right.”. I still stand by the statement that she said something racist. When you talk of dumping someone off with their own kind instead of helping them then that to me is racist. She did not decide it was about ‘rich and poor’ until she saw how he was treated after she was racist in her actions. What say you? Obviously you will disagree because that is who you are. I see that as racist and I still stand by that statement. Made up Scenario X —– It would be like me saying I didn’t hire the man because he was black. Then I saw he had ability and it really wasn’t about the color of his skin, it was about his abilities. So I helped him find another job where he would be appreciated because of his abilities. In made up ‘Scenario X’ I acted with racist intentions just as miss Sherrod did(in my interpretaion) of her recalled incident. I still see racism, no matter how minor or great, whether or not I see the entire 43 minutes. Yes the rest shows he changed her thoughts on the subject but it does not change the original action. Did AB edit ‘creatively and unfairly’? Sure he did. Does it erase any racism said within the entire 43 minutes? Of course not. Should she have been fired for saying something minorly racist at an event of an orginization that is aimed at helping people based on the color of their skin? No. I wouldn’t expect
anything less. I just wish people would be honest about it. Please no more I said in work 537 of paragraph 37 on such a day and such a time. It is like trying to follow a ‘Chose Your Own Adventure’ book on tax laws. Or at least paraphrase with it. I’m a simple man. Have mercy on my small mind.

“Please no more I said in work 537 of paragraph 37 on such a day and such a time.” Sorry following my directions is so difficult, but . . IF you hadn’t ignored the issues I brought up in the earlier individual posts when I raised’em, I wouldn’t have had to ask you to answer’em again in my 7/26 7:58 pm post. Tsk, tsk. Didn’t your mother teach you to “Never put off ’til tomorrow what you can do today” ?

Sorry, but a description of her racist past in that example does NOT make the statement racist. AB’s editing involved some creativity—if you call making a non-racist speech appear racist “creative”. And if you do,that’s not creative on your part—it’s,( how shall I say it?) warped. The part Breitbart presented—bless his dark, “creative” :) —heart) was the lesson of a longer story Sherrod recounted to descrjbe racist feelings she felt at a time in her past and the event that caused an epiphany for her.

“Made up Scenario X “—and there it is k. . . There IS a world of difference between a made up ‘scenario’ and a retelliing of a real-life past experience, you know. It is, quite obviously , the difference between something meaningless and something authentic. emotional , and fraught with meaning. Especially if the past life experiences include being a black in the South in the ’50’s and ’60’s.

“Sorry, but a description of her racist past in that example does NOT make the statement racist.” – I disagree especially when she talks subjectively of the motive of the man trying to show superiority. But hey, I can see how you can think a recounting is different from outright statements of racism like mentioning a party voting a certain way because of the color of the President’s skin.

” “Made up Scenario X “—and there it is k. . . There IS a world of difference between a made up ‘scenario’ and a retelliing of a real-life past experience, you know. It is, quite obviously , the difference between something meaningless and something authentic. emotional , and fraught with meaning. Especially if the past life experiences include being a black in the South in the ’50′s and ’60′s. ” – Finding reasons for motive is good for documentaries and ‘who done it’ shows but that does not make an action right. A man who is sexually abused while young does not have any more right to raping someone else than a person that was not abused when young.

Now here’s an interesting trick. See if you can follow it, since you’re the one who tried to pull it off.

Para 1/ You made a claim “. . .there are two of you that deny Shirley mentioning Republicans voting against a bill was because the president was black”. concerning her statement about the health care bill, at 7/26 —3 and 3:03 pm. I challenged you to prove your claim at my 7/26 7:58 pm and you couldn’t—basically because you fabricated that assertion.

Now you return to the same fabrication and through implication weave it in as if it’s atruth :) : ” But hey, I can see how you can think a recounting is different from outright statements of racism like mentioning a party voting a certain way because of the color of the President’s skin.”

Maybe the fact that we can go back and chase you through your errors/whatever is why you claim you “can’t spend all [your]time here.: . .”

Para 2/ Your analogies. . .what more can I say about your analogies? There’s a difference between a person carrying a thought based on past experiences through to its execution (as in the case of your rapist) and someone formulating an idea based on past experiences and stopping well short of completing that idea AND in effect REVERSING directions completely because of an insight. Some might call such an insight being ‘born again’.

Murder is murder. Falling short of murder is attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon or it’s just an idea written in a journal. Rape is rape. Thoughts about rape are, until they’re acted upon, just thoughts. No more harmfull or meaningful to our discussion than this image of a tall glass of iced tea that I’m thinking of right now.

“In 1997 Timothy Pigford, a black farmer from North Carolina, filed a class-action suit against the USDA. The plaintiffs alleged that the USDA had discriminated against them between 1983 and 1997 in allocating aid, and had failed to investigate claims of discrimination.

The USDA has long had a shoddy record on civil rights. In 1965 the US Commission on Civil Rights (USCR) found that the agency discriminated both in allocating resources and in how it treated its employees. Later reports found that the agency’s civil-rights abuses contributed to a decline in minority farm-ownership. And in 1994, a consultancy commissioned by the USDA found that minority farmers were shortchanged in loans, disaster payments and crop payments.” {continued}